Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, when I reflect on the incident of the weekend when the two L.A. County deputies were shot and they had to tend to each other and apply first aid to each other, and they were rushed to the hospital, the rigid cruelty of the mob that gathered at the hospital trying to block an ambulance from accessing the emergency room, accompanied with hateful shouts and taunts, as evidence of the loss of goodness in our society. The feckless leaders of some States and cities that have not only permitted the destruction of property, but the wasting of lives and livelihoods are without heart, as well. In many cases they have not only stood by watching the wreckage, they have fomented the rioting, looting, the murder, and mayhem. One of the enemies of a free society is one who will appease people who are intent on destroying the rights of individuals within that society, those who permit and encourage by inaction criminal conduct. We saw this when the Portland mayor, Ted Wheeler, was driven from his own home because the mob had turned on him. He is not alone. Winston Churchill once noted that an appeaser is someone who feeds others to the alligators with the hopes that he will be eaten last. That is what is being lived out in some American cities before our eyes today. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud), my friend.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I include the following items in the Record: A letter dated September 10, 2020, to the Honorable William P. Barr, Attorney General; a newspaper article dated September 15, 2020; another one, dated August 26, 2020; another piece which is undated, which I will get the date for; and then another series of articles as well. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 10, 2020. Hon. William P. Barr, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Barr: We write to share our deep concerns regarding the ongoing violence that has gripped American cities and threatened the rule of law across our nation. ANTIFA and other left-wing anarchist groups have unleashed a barrage of totalitarian attacks on our country in recent months, including accosting a sitting U.S. Senator, hijacking peaceful rallies, organizing armed riots, destroying property, burning buildings, stealing livelihoods, and spreading hate. It is clear that these individuals are well-funded and supported by a national network of left-wing activists committed to perpetrating violence and furthering anarchy in our streets. As such, we urge you to immediately open an investigation to identify and prosecute all individuals and groups responsible for funding and organizing these terroristic acts that are wreaking havoc on our nation. As you know, 18 U.S. Sec. 2101 makes it a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison to incite a riot; organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in a riot. Tragically, we are seeing the letter and spirit of the law being desecrated on a daily basis, as ANTIFA and other organized groups of anarchists continue to infiltrate peaceful protests and launch violent attacks against American citizens. Tragically, these activities recently turned deadly in Portland, Oregon, as Michael Forest Reinoehl, who described himself as ``100% ANTIFA'' shot and killed a supporter of President Trump. Additionally, the riots in Portland and other major American cities have revealed a targeted effort to destabilize our way of life, including deliberately targeting federal buildings and law enforcement in an effort to undermine the rule of law. The prolonged nature and organization of these violent attacks, including the rioters' use of military grade helmets, gas masks, protective vests, and illegal fireworks, clearly displays the high level of coordination and outside funding supporting these anarchist groups. It is readily apparent that these individuals were outfitted for war and were clearly part of a planned effort to infiltrate peaceful protests, provoke violence, and further subvert our system of government. Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. Well- organized factions of ANTIFA and other anarchist groups have taken advantage of peaceful protests to sow division, threaten free speech, and enflame tensions throughout the nation for more than 90 days. The violence occurring in our cities cannot continue. The DOJ must take action to stop these dangerous attacks. As such, we urge you to fully investigate the groups responsible for these attacks on our republic and prosecute all individuals who are violating federal law by participating in, inciting, organizing, or funding these destructive riots. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this urgent request and your prompt action to protect our nation. Sincerely, Ken Buck, Andy Biggs, Brian Babin, D.D.S., Ted Budd, Doug Collins, Bob Gibbs, Jeff Duncan, Steve King, Members of Congress.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, as we have recognized here today with our speakers the importance of law enforcement to maintaining our rights and the safety of our neighborhoods and communities, I am reminded that it was just a little over a month ago, late July 2020, when the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives said about antifa, as the city of Portland was being burned by antifa, he said it is a myth. It is a myth. And then what has happened is an internal email from the Department of Homeland Security revealed Monday that the violence in Portland was not opportunistic but, rather, organized by the antifa organization. We have got to see that our Attorney General--I urge him, I urge the FBI to investigate and the Attorney General to take every action that the law allows, whether it is civil RICO or prosecution of these individuals, because, if you want to bring our society back into order, you take people who are violent, rioting, looting, causing mayhem and murder, you arrest them. You charge them, you prosecute them, and you convict them. We know there are law enforcement who do a great job, but right now, in many places around this country, it will take a law enforcement officer 5 or 10 minutes or longer to get to a home or a business that is under attack by a criminal. When that happens, if they are under attack, these individuals need to have the right, as they do under the Second Amendment, to protect themselves. That right must be protected and maintained. So I am kind of surprised--I am going to give you a fact here. In Pennsylvania alone, this year, you have had an increase in new gun owners by more than a quarter of a million. More than a quarter of a million people in Pennsylvania own guns today who didn't own them at the beginning of the year. Why? Because of what is going on in our streets, whether it is in Pennsylvania, Oregon, or wherever else it may be. A mob circles a home in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; an individual holds up a shotgun inside as this mob surrounds his home. What does the mob do, the antifa folks? They call the police to have this man arrested for having a gun on the ready to protect himself from that very mob. That is backwards. Mr. Speaker, we thank the police. The purpose of the police is to protect the weak and the rights of all. When our leaders in places like Portland, Minneapolis, you name it, castigate the police or celebrities castigate the police, what they are really saying is: We are content with mob rule. That can't be the case. We have heard this tonight from my colleagues who have said this so well. We support the police, and we support the thin blue line that protects our rights. This rioting and this mayhem must end tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being here tonight. I appreciate his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), my friend.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his efforts and service in Congress as he prepares to retire soon. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Yoho. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), who on the other end of the spectrum is fairly new to Congress.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Representative Gosar, for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), my friend.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, ``The Postal Service is fully capable of delivering the Nation's election mail securely and on time.'' That was the testimony of the Postmaster General. But they don't trust the Postmaster General. The post office has taken care of over 400 million pieces of mail every day. But they don't trust the Postmaster General. That is intriguing to me, because they are going to give the Postmaster General an additional $25 billion. They don't trust him, yet they are going to give him $25 billion when he already has $15 billion cash on hand and a $10 billion line of credit. We don't trust this guy, but we are going to give him $25 billion extra. But moreover, this is a crisis. We want reforms. We want changes. We don't trust the current Postmaster General, so what we are going to do is we are going to proscribe any kind of efforts to make the post office, Postal Service, work better. We are going to stop that. Not only are we going to stop that, we are going to give a new cause of action to trial lawyers against the USPS. That is what is going on in this bill, and I find that intriguing. It reminds me of a Eugene Ionesco play, Luigi Pirandello. We are talking theater of the absurd here. That is what we are talking about. Democrats call the failures of USPS a crisis, but they are going to prohibit reforms or changes. Think of the irony of that. I would suggest that this illustrates the Democrats' overarching theme: If you just send money, it will always solve the problem, whatever the problem is, even if there is no real problem. This is not a money issue. This is not an acute issue. This is a long-term problem that has been there for multiple administrations. Now, to come in at the last minute--and here is part of the absurdity.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Comer for yielding. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles from periodicals. [From the Washington Tmes, Aug. 18, 2020] Democrats Fuel Post Office panic With Lies To Win Upcoming Election (By Andy Biggs) There are two almost immutable laws of operation that form the basis of America's political left. The first is that Democrats and leftists foment fear in order to obtain and maintain political power. The other is that they always accuse everyone else, conservatives and Republicans, of acts, words and ideas in which the left is engaged. If that means that the truth must be adulterated in order to craft a narrative that gins up panic and hysteria, they will shade the truth. Lies beget panic, panic calls for a solution--usually a big spending solution--and the Democrats try to exploit that panic to get more power. The Democrats are engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding the upcoming election and mail-in ballots that is deceptive and reflective of their goal of winning the election by hook or crook. Democrats and their left-wing publicists in the media claim that President Trump is going to dismantle the United States Postal Service (USPS). This absurdity typifies both of the Democratic strategies: It is a lie to engender panic, and the stealing of the election is their objective, not the president's. They claim that Mr. Trump is going to fiscally starve the behemoth USPS in order to prevent all mailed ballots from being counted. Of course, neither claim is true. The president signed a bill that provided an additional $10 billion to the USPS just a few weeks ago. At the time, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said, ``While the USPS is able to fund its operating expenses without additional borrowing at this time, we are pleased to have reached an agreement on the material terms and conditions of a loan, should the need arise.'' And, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows also confirmed on CNN that the White House offered the additional $10 billion in funding to the Postal Service. Refreshing the left's collective memory about the availability of massive amounts of funding to the USPS ought to have put this phony claim to bed. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting that the House of Representatives return to vote on additional funding for the USPS, which illustrates the Democrats' overarching theme: Just send money; it will always solve the problem, whatever the problem is, even if there is no real problem. The second deception that the Democrats are using to try and steal the upcoming election is by conflating the long- established practice of absentee balloting with the election- fraud-producing scam that the left is selling of universal mail-in ballots. By consolidating the two, very different voting procedures, they are trying to scare Americans into believing that Mr. Trump is going to cheat in the upcoming election. This is consistent with Democrats' operating strategy and the methodology that they will accuse you of what they are actually trying to accomplish. In this case, the Democrats are trying to steal the election by sending ballots out to every name on every voter roll. But they are fighting against cleaning up the voter rolls. Your uncle is dead but still on the voter roll? A ballot comes to his last address in his name. Your cat is somehow on the roll? Fluffy gets a ballot. Democrats know that their demands will incentivize and produce fraudulent ballots by sending out ballots to those who haven't requested them. They are OK with that because they think they can win the dead voter and pet cat demographics. They accuse Mr. Trump of defunding the USPS--when the left really wants to defund the police--and their accusation is a lie. They know that the president supports the long-standing practice of absentee voting, but claim he is against that. Another lie. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is so concerned that she is bringing the House back into session to vote on legislation that means nothing. Oh yeah, it's urgent alright, but only after the Democratic convention is completed. Oh, and it's only to give Democrats the opportunity to further the panic- driven narrative, because the Senate isn't going to hear the speaker's deceptive bill. Never forget that the Democrats and left always accuse you of what they are actually doing and that they will prevaricate to further that claim. The left will try and stoke panic in the country, then attempt to spend any amount of money to quell that panic in order to arrogate power. The deception surrounding the USPS ``crisis'' is just another great example of Marxian-Democrat duplicity.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, the richest part of this irony, this absurdity, is: Here we are today. We are going to vote on this bill today, and we are going to have the hearing on Monday in the committee. That is the richest part of an absurdity that is going to cost us $25 billion.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the minority whip.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment to H.R. 2486. The Access to Counsel Act of 2020 is a way for the majority to test how far they can go toward their ultimate goal of taxpayer-funded counsel at every stage of the immigration process. I think we just heard that, that that is a stated goal. Many immigration interest groups have made no mystery of the fact that they believe foreign nationals have a right to come to the United States and should all receive taxpayer-funded counsel at every stage of the process. My colleagues across the aisle understand that it is currently a bridge too far to repeal outright the Immigration and Nationality Act provision that prohibits taxpayer-funded counsel during removal proceedings. But this amendment is a step forward in their march in that direction. The bill mandates that the DHS Secretary shall ensure that an individual who has been selected by Customs and Border Protection for secondary screening at a port of entry has a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and an interested party during such screening. It is important to understand exactly what secondary screening is, why it is used, and the ramifications that this bill would have on the port of entry operations. My colleagues across the aisle provided the Judiciary Committee no opportunity to hear from DHS experts about any of these issues. There was no hearing on this legislation or even generally on the subject matter at hand. CBP is extremely concerned about the impact the requirements of this bill would have on processing at ports of entry. Many of us have been to airports and seen the long lines of passengers from abroad waiting to be processed. We have been to land ports of entry and seen lines of passenger vehicles and cargo trucks that literally wait for hours for the opportunity to enter the U.S. The Access to Counsel Act would exponentially increase those processing and wait times. Secondary inspection is used at ports of entry to give CBP officials time for additional screening that may take longer than the normal case. It can include more in-depth questioning, additional database searches, and physical searches when an individual is suspected of carrying contraband. Secondary inspection is done in an area near the primary inspection booths. It serves to remove those whose admissibility may be in question from the primary inspection line so as to not slow the line down. The vast majority of the over 400 million people admitted the United States annually do not get referred to secondary inspection, but about 17 million do. Most ports of entry buildings and other infrastructure are not equipped to allow multiple counsel consultations at the same time. That means longer wait times and backlogs for entry. Allowing 17 million people to consult with counsel or some other interested party will bring legitimate trade and travel to a grinding halt. Of course, slowing down of trade and travel processing isn't the only concern with H.R. 5581. Under current regulations adopted in 1980, applicants for admission are not entitled to representation in primary or secondary inspections, unless the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. But this bill gives all applicants for admission to the U.S., including nonimmigrants and lawful permanent residents, a new statutory right to counsel. This idea is based on the belief that everyone has a right to enter the U.S., and it is a first step toward what many of our Democrat colleagues ultimately want, taxpayer-funded counsel for foreign nationals. In addition, there are serious concerns with what constitutes interested parties under the bill. The term is defined to include practically anyone, including any relative of the covered individual, the petitioner or sponsor of a visa, or anyone with a bona fide connection to the covered individual. This could result in a scenario where a covered individual is referred for secondary inspection because he is believed to be smuggling drugs or some other contraband and then places a call to tip off his accomplices. The Access to Counsel Act is a bad idea that would unduly hinder legitimate trade and travel. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, you have heard a lot of incendiary language regarding the travel restrictions. The most incendiary language is always calling it ``incendiary,'' ``a white nationalist agenda,'' ``racist,'' ``hateful,'' et cetera. Was it xenophobic, was it racist, was it hateful when the Obama administration implemented travel bans to the same seven nations? Was it? No. Nor is it here either. Madam Speaker, that kind of language is meant to incite public ridicule and distract from the real issue here. As the Supreme Court noted, the text in this bill says nothing about religion. And as they went on to say: ``The policy covers just 8 percent of the world's Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations''--read, Obama administration--``as posing national security risks.'' That is not a Muslim ban. This is a legitimate travel restriction implemented for the safety of this Nation. Additionally, I heard from multiple friends across the aisle a straw man argument, a true straw man argument here, that this ban was religious in nature. But if that were the case, they would have stopped it after inserting religion with other proscriptions. But instead, they built up a huge bureaucratic apparatus to limit the authority of the President of the United States. So it is a straw man argument. Madam Speaker, the chairman mentioned that the Supreme Court ruling, in his opinion, was without justification, and so I am going to read what the Supreme Court said: ``The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings--following a worldwide, multiagency review--that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest.'' The sole prerequisite, they said, is for the President to find that the entry of the covered aliens ``would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.'' But the President fulfilled that requirement by first ordering DHS and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country's compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline. That is what this policy was built upon. It is consistent with the Obama administration and the previous administrations. But for whatever reason, and I think we all can surmise what that may be, when this President conducts an even more thorough evaluation of these nations and their processes and then issues a proclamation setting forth those extensive findings describing deficiencies in those practices--and, by the way, I am going here based on the Supreme Court decision again--in the practices of select foreign governments, several of which are state sponsors of terrorism, it is somehow xenophobic, a white nationalist agenda, racist, and hateful. But when the previous administration did it and actually came back to Congress and added three more nations, it wasn't. The only ad hominem attack I would ever make here is that it surely seems potentially hypocritical to me. No visas would be revoked pursuant to P.P. 9645 or 9983. Individuals subject to those Presidential proclamations who possess a valid visa or valid travel document were permitted to travel and continue to be admitted to travel in this country. To call it a Muslim ban is meant to incite--and I will say, we do terrible on this side of the aisle. My friends across the aisle, when you find that peg to hang your hat on, heck of a great job, because everybody uses it. It is very effective, but it is highly misleading. What this bill does is it emasculates the very notion of executive power in the President. It really does. The idea, because you want to emasculate the power of President Trump. But what it does is it gives more power to the bureaucratic state, more power to the bureaucratic state. So the timeline is also going to prevent the President from acting quickly on this. These are the issues that we have just been distracted from, because it certainly appears--and I will say, my friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), when she talked about symbolism in her speech, she is right. This is symbolic. This bill is symbolic. It is symbolic, if you will, of a hatred of this President. Because when the previous President's administration did this, not a peep. This administration does the same thing, and it is outrageous. Madam Speaker, the implementation was not great. They have admitted the implementation was not great, but that is an implementation problem, not a policy problem. And you want to change the entire policy and the entire structure not because the policy was bad--if it were, we would have heard about it the last 40 years--but, instead, because the original implementation was bad. The Supreme Court has upheld what this administration did because what they did was conduct a thorough vetting of their own policy regarding these nations and those nations' policies in implementing safety mechanisms, and so they fulfilled that. Here we are today, saying: You know what? Because it is President Donald Trump, this is bad. Madam Speaker, they are going to pass this bill. There is no doubt they are going to pass this amendment. But never forget the inherent inconsistency with the act that you are going to do on this bill with what you have done in the previous administrations. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am interested in the interpretation of the term ``meaningful opportunity.'' I tried a lot of cases in my career. I did both prosecution and criminal defense extensively. I can tell you what a meaningful opportunity would be as counsel. It would be sitting there with my client face-to-face, getting all the information possible. If the intention was to include, specifically, a simple phone call, that is what should have been put in here. That is what should have been put in this bill, but it wasn't. So, when I read it, I think of places I have been to all along the border, having grown up in southern Arizona, and I have taken and led many congressional delegations over the last 3\1/2\ years. I think of the Antelope Wells Port of Entry. I think about that being about a 4-hour drive for the Customs and Border Protection officers that manned that or worked there, that staffed that. I think, well, what is the communications like there? It is not good. It is not good. It is extremely remote. The nearest town on the Mexican side of the border is 60 miles away. The nearest town on the New Mexico side of that border is Lordsburg, which is about a good 1.5- to 2-hour drive away itself. If you really wanted to get to narrow this, this bill should have been narrowed, but it wasn't narrowed. I think of Naco, that little port of entry in southern Arizona. I think of Douglas. I am telling you, the problem that this bill has is it doesn't--if that is the goal. There are other problems, but if that is the goal, this language has not been specific enough. I also have talked with those who have had the secondary inspection. If we are referring to the implementation of the travel restriction-- and I think the world, including the administration, admitted that it was rolled out poorly--that is a different animal than what happens on a normal basis. I think of the San Luis Port of Entry or the Nogales Port of Entry, but, particularly, San Luis. It gets so much traffic through there. I can't imagine what will happen when you try to bog down everything by allowing everyone who moves to a secondary inspection have counsel or some other interested party, who we don't really know who that is. That is not defined very well, either. I think of all the commercial truck traffic that comes through Nogales. We don't inspect but a small fraction of vehicles coming through there. It is very difficult to move traffic. The infrastructure itself is not conducive to this. I will just say, the one thing I was reminded of as I was reviewing this bill for this debate today--and it really kind of came out in the debate when someone was talking about this notion of where we are now, which is if you become a focus of a criminal investigation, you do get counsel. You get that opportunity for counsel. I started thinking that, yes, exactly, this is what we are doing. We are saying now, in a civil administrative function, we are going to give you a right to counsel. Are we going to expand that to every area where there are civil administrative regulatory violations or potential violations? The answer is that would be absolutely, totally bizarre. It would be unworkable, just as this will be unworkable. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I just want to go back to this and indicate there are a multiplicity of issues with this bill, but some things that I want to reiterate. I think the bill is a step forward to providing state-funded counsel for folks who are here getting a secondary inspection, which in the vast majority of cases is almost perfunctory and incidental and is very quick, in the normal case. Again, I think it is bad facts--or, actually, good facts to make the argument. It is not going to make good policy. You are, again, arguing implementation of the travel restriction, which wasn't great. But the norm--the norm--if you get down to the border and spend time, as I have many times, you are going to see these secondary inspections are short, perfunctory. There is no need of counsel. They almost always turn out well for the person that is delayed, except for when they are a danger. Then, it becomes a problem, and they get an opportunity for counsel because now you have a criminal focus on them. That is the key here. So, expanding this to civil cases, which is exactly what you are doing here, and putting us in line to walk down to where we ultimately are going to pay for that, that is not great policy. That is bad policy, and I am urging my folks to oppose this. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker's invoking President Reagan, because in 1981, President Reagan used 212(f) authority to suspend entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas, so I appreciate her reminding us of the use of 212(f) by Reagan. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will just say this, I appreciate the sponsor of this indicating that, in their interpretation, a simple phone call would suffice. I don't think that is the way CBP is interpreting this. I think they are interpreting this that they are going to have to build out infrastructure so there can be private facilities for counsel to meet with these folks. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left?

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.